Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Atowar Ali S/O Late Habibullah Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Medhi, J.
1. The instant Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C 1973, [corresponding to Section 415 of the BNS S ] against the judgment & order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang in Session Case No.79/2015 corresponding to Dhaligaon P.S Case No.174/2012 U/S 302 IPC [corresponding to Section 103 of the BNS ] by which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, RI for 6 months.
2. The criminal law was set in motion by lodging of the Ejahar dated 17.10.2012 by the PW-1, who is the wife of the deceased Nazrul Islam. The Ejahar states that on 17.10.2012 at about 6:45 P.M, the informant’s husband Nazrul Islam was st coming towards his quarter after his duty. When he reached the 1 corridor of the staff quarter, the appellant/convict intentionally shot the deceased with his arms as a result of which the informant’s husband sustained injuries. It is also stated in the Ejahar that on hearing the noise, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased falling down on the corridor and that while dying, the deceased told the informant that it was the
Eyewitness testimony and dying declarations of the victim were sufficient to establish guilt in a murder case, despite the absence of established motive.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is not always fatal to the prosecution case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony, which was corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances, to prove the guilt of the ....
The refusal of the accused to undergo TIP, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires establishing a complete chain of events proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural issues do not negate overwhelming substantive evid....
Merely, because they have not been examined is not a ground to disbelieve an otherwise credible ocular account rendered by a person injured in the incident whose presence, otherwise also, is natural ....
Circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction if it forms a complete chain of events, even in the absence of direct eyewitness accounts.
The conviction for attempted murder was upheld based on reliable witness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, establishing the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
